Rule 23(g)(3) and Its Significance in the Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Case

What is Rule 23(g)(3)?

Rule 23(g)(3) is part of the broader Rule 23 that governs class actions in U.S. federal courts. This subsection empowers the court to designate interim counsel in cases where the class is not yet certified. The idea behind this is to ensure that the would-be class is adequately represented during the pre-certification stages of the litigation.

Key Provisions of Rule 23(g)(3):

The rule essentially allows a court to appoint interim class counsel if the court believes it's necessary to protect the interests of the class during the pre-certification phase. The court will consider factors such as:

• The work the attorney has already invested in the case.
• The attorney's experience in handling class actions and relevant claims.
• The attorney's knowledge of the applicable laws.
• The resources the attorney can dedicate to the case.

Relevance to the Camp Lejeune Water Contamination Case:

Attorney Roy T. Willey, IV, placed Rule 23(g)(3) under the spotlight in the Camp Lejeune litigation. The crux of his argument was that, since he had initiated what he claimed was the "first and only" class action under the Camp Lejeune Justice Act (CLJA), the court should consider Rule 23(g)(3) for appointing interim class counsel. In his view, as the initiator of this class action, he should be favored for a leadership position or, at the very least, be part of the leadership group.

Why is Rule 23(g)(3) Important in this Case?

• Ensuring Adequate Representation: With a vast number of claims associated with the Camp Lejeune Water Contamination case, ensuring that the would-be class members are properly represented before class certification is crucial. The rule provides a structured framework for courts to ensure this representation.
• Potential Influence on Leadership Decisions: The interpretation and application of Rule 23(g)(3) can significantly influence the appointment of interim class counsel and leadership roles in massive litigations like the Camp Lejeune case.
• Legal Strategy and Debate: The invocation of Rule 23(g)(3) by Willey sparked considerable debate on its application. It illustrates how attorneys might use this rule as a strategic tool to advocate for leadership positions based on their early involvement and investments in a case.

Court’s Viewpoint in the Camp Lejeune Case:

In the Camp Lejeune litigation, the court emphasized its autonomy and discretion. It underscored that neither the CLJA, its inherent powers, nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including Rule 23, restrict the court to a binary choice of leadership appointment. While recognizing Willey's arguments, the court reiterated that initiating a class action does not automatically guarantee a leadership role. The court is free to choose leadership based on several factors, ensuring the best representation for the plaintiffs.

Understanding The impact of Rule 23(g)(3) in CLJA Claims

Rule 23(g)(3), while a specific provision in the broader framework of class actions, plays a pivotal role in ensuring fair representation during the early stages of a class action litigation. In high-stake, large-scale litigations like the Camp Lejeune Water Contamination case, the rule's application and interpretation can have significant consequences. As this case has demonstrated, understanding and strategically invoking procedural rules can heavily influence the course of legal proceedings.

Citation:

Cornell Law School - https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_23